Forget Econ Stats, Do Americans Feel Economic Exhuberance or Malaise?

[Dad2three]

You need a new writer.

This stuff is getting old.

I get it, facts and empirical evidence doesn't generally follow conservatives

You have no facts. You have no empirical evidence. You have nothing. Democrats have nothing!! Obama has failed out almost everything.


Other than one "Confidence Report" for one month.... which I pointed out can turn on a dime especially since that was taken before UE went back up and interest rates started to go back up....what OTHER pieces of evidence do you have that the economy is doing great?

" OTHER pieces of evidence do you have that the economy is doing great"

REALLY? Who claims that? You mean has Obama picked US up from the disaster Dubya/GOP policies left US? YES. Is the US economy SLOWLY BUT STEADILY GETTING BACK TO WHERE CLINTON HAD US? YES

EVERYTHING else you posit is just rabid right wing crap...

 

[Dad2three]

Did the chief subversive put a TIME LIMIT on that?

Did Obama and ANY thinking person realize the US needed to get back to Clinton level revenues (20%+ of GDP) AFTER Dubya took US to Korean war levels (15% of GDP). Yes, I'm sure they did...AND Obama has REPEATEDLY said so!

Yes, going to WAR after being attacked is EXPENSIVE, you'd probably would have preferred another WTC type strike on America, as all good subversive would want...Bring us to our knees! Seems you're just another liberal pacifist, might want to try suicide next time out!

"WAR after being attacked is EXPENSIVE"

FUCKING TRUE, WHAT DID DUBYA DO INSTEAD? CUT REVENUES. Fucking brilliant!!!!

 

[EconChick]

You mean for Dubya's dropping US to Korean war level revenues AS he took US to 2 UNFUNDED wars and created a UNFUNDED Medicare explosion that costs as much as Obamacares, that is 100% funded? Or Dubya's 'home ownership society' where he ignored regulator warnings, over and over and cheered on the Banksters instead?

I'm going to put this in the most simplistic terms I can possibly come up with to get down to your level.

You are incapable of doing what we call "weighting."

It means you take 30, 50, 1000 variables....pick one....and you weight them all equally. That's as inaccurate as claiming the ocean is made of bubblegum. Yet you do it in post after post after post.

You'd never get past GO in the real world.

Real world? Dubya caused 80%+ of the damage the US had 2001-2009

Obama, acting like a Repugnant many times, is responsible for about 30% of the negative (coddling GOPers for 5+ years, drones, agreeing to keeping tax low on those $200,000+ households, sequester, etc) crap that's happened!


How's THAT for weighted?

Bush was responsible for almost all of what happened between 2001 to 2007. Except of course the 9/11 attack. If you say he's responsible for that again I will flat out call you out as someone suffering from drug addiction, retardation, or dementia.

From 2007 to 2008 everyone takes a piece of the blame for the crash.

In other words, Bush can't be blamed for the impact 911 had on the economy and he only takes a portion of the blame for the crash.

Obama on the other hand, had control of the whole budget. If he wanted to end the wars, he should've brought our troops home immediately.

And while we're on that subject, I am the opp of that damn pacifist. I believe that if you do it, do it with overwhelming force and get it over with. Don't drag it out. Or get the hell totally out.

If O had gotten totally out right away, I would not have agreed, but I would've at least respected the decisiveness.

But instead that idiot has done the absolute worse thing he could do. He threw more troops in for nothing but political reasons but had no intent of really fighting.

So no, I don't give him a pass on the cost of the wars occurring in his tenure. If he had pulled everyone out immediately, I would in that case agree that all war expenditures were Bush's.

But that's not what O did.

Same with TARP. He could've reversed it if he really disagreed with it. But Dems and Rep's both inside the beltway agreed to it.

So you don't understand how to weight properly in the least.

 

[EconChick]

Did Obama and ANY thinking person realize the US needed to get back to Clinton level revenues (20%+ of GDP) AFTER Dubya took US to Korean war levels (15% of GDP). Yes, I'm sure they did...AND Obama has REPEATEDLY said so!

Yes, going to WAR after being attacked is EXPENSIVE, you'd probably would have preferred another WTC type strike on America, as all good subversive would want...Bring us to our knees! Seems you're just another liberal pacifist, might want to try suicide next time out!

"WAR after being attacked is EXPENSIVE"

FUCKING TRUE, WHAT DID DUBYA DO INSTEAD? CUT REVENUES. Fucking brilliant!!!!

And there we have it folks.

D23 is a tax and spend liberal. PERIOD.

That has never worked and it's not working now.

 

[EconChick]

I get it, facts and empirical evidence doesn't generally follow conservatives

You have no facts. You have no empirical evidence. You have nothing. Democrats have nothing!! Obama has failed out almost everything.


Other than one "Confidence Report" for one month.... which I pointed out can turn on a dime especially since that was taken before UE went back up and interest rates started to go back up....what OTHER pieces of evidence do you have that the economy is doing great?

" OTHER pieces of evidence do you have that the economy is doing great"

REALLY? Who claims that? You mean has Obama picked US up from the disaster Dubya/GOP policies left US? YES. Is the US economy SLOWLY BUT STEADILY GETTING BACK TO WHERE CLINTON HAD US? YES

EVERYTHING else you posit is just rabid right wing crap...

You're damn right it's SLOWLY. As in malaise, not exuberance.

My work is done here.

 

[EconChick]

You need a new writer.

This stuff is getting old.

Boy ain't that the truth, Listening.

So, we can all dump dozens and dozens of pieces of data that show Americans are not happy with how Obama is running the economy, and the only thing the Fakey Band can come up with is one Confidence Report that I tore apart in one post.

I don't understand....even martians wouldn't be this "thick."

REAL WORLD FACTS FOR YOU BUBBETTE:

Dubya- 1.2+ million jobs in 8 years

Obama 10+ million since hitting the Bush bottom March 2010

Now we're back to third grade math.

The dumbest economist I know would never post what you just posted. It's simpleton-ville.

That's like showing a chart of how many wet dreams you have or don't have every day for several years and claiming that's how many chicks you bag.


There is an ever so small relationship but in the big scheme has nothing to do with each other.

 

[EconChick]

YOU stated it was over after the downturn REMEMBER? lol.. What did NASDAQ and Dow close at today? lol

My Lord you're stupid beyond belief. You just described a complete financial crash. You think I said there would be a complete financial crash within a few days of last Thursday?

There really is something terribly wrong with you.

No, TRY to be honest, YOU said the gig (Obama's/Feds) was up, the 'smart money' was leaving WS, the interest rates were going up, and the economy would feel it AND the stocks would decline, lol


ANOTHER failed Austrian, lol

Yes, as in it was going to start moving in that direction; not happen all at once today!! Do you ever listen to market news? Do you ever listen to CNBC for example?

You must not....you'd have a hard time grasping what they were really saying.

 

[Vigilante]

Did Obama and ANY thinking person realize the US needed to get back to Clinton level revenues (20%+ of GDP) AFTER Dubya took US to Korean war levels (15% of GDP). Yes, I'm sure they did...AND Obama has REPEATEDLY said so!

Yes, going to WAR after being attacked is EXPENSIVE, you'd probably would have preferred another WTC type strike on America, as all good subversive would want...Bring us to our knees! Seems you're just another liberal pacifist, might want to try suicide next time out!

"WAR after being attacked is EXPENSIVE"

FUCKING TRUE, WHAT DID DUBYA DO INSTEAD? CUT REVENUES. Fucking brilliant!!!!

Yes, having MORE MONEY in ones pocket wouldn't be the way subversives would try to stimulate the economy...

They'd go for MORE DEBT with an $880 BILLION STIMULUS PACKAGE that did LITTLE to stimulate anything but Democrat, subversive donors!

Yes, you bastards love nothing better than to spend other peoples money on your friends, and to BUY VOTES!

 

[EconChick]

YOU are working on a Doctorate in economics? lol

DUBYA- 1.2+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS IN 8 YEARS (NOT COUNTING THE 4+ MILLION LOST IN 2009 THANKS TO HIS POLICIES)

OBAMA- 10+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS CREATED UNDER HIM SINCE HITTING BUSH'S BOTTOM MARCH 2010, CUT BUSH'S LAST F/Y DEFICIT BY 60%

LOL, you don't know the first thing about statistics, idiot.

Nope, that's all bullshit. You know the saying: there's lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Back to my trying to teach that third grade math does not apply to the economy. You can't think past the third grade so no wonder it went over your head.

Says the klown working on a Doctorate in Econ using POLLS as her confirmation, lol

There are dozens of threads on this website that have already given the data. I told you I didn't want to turn this into dueling stats. If I wanted that, I would've started a stats duel in the Economy Section.

We could spend thousands of hours throwing competing stats back and forth. As I said in the OP, I wanted to step back from the stats that only confused the average American and debate this based on what people observed in the economy in their communities, in their families, in their states.

The polls are perfectly in keeping with what I said in the OP.

I can't help that you can't read.

 

[EconChick]

Yes, going to WAR after being attacked is EXPENSIVE, you'd probably would have preferred another WTC type strike on America, as all good subversive would want...Bring us to our knees! Seems you're just another liberal pacifist, might want to try suicide next time out!

"WAR after being attacked is EXPENSIVE"

FUCKING TRUE, WHAT DID DUBYA DO INSTEAD? CUT REVENUES. Fucking brilliant!!!!

Yes, having MORE MONEY in ones pocket wouldn't be the way subversives would try to stimulate the economy...

They'd go for MORE DEBT with an $880 BILLION STIMULUS PACKAGE that did LITTLE to stimulate anything but Democrat, subversive donors!

Yes, you bastards love nothing better than to spend other peoples money on your friends, and to BUY VOTES!

Here Here, V!!!

 

[Listening]

You mean for Dubya's dropping US to Korean war level revenues AS he took US to 2 UNFUNDED wars and created a UNFUNDED Medicare explosion that costs as much as Obamacares, that is 100% funded? Or Dubya's 'home ownership society' where he ignored regulator warnings, over and over and cheered on the Banksters instead?

You need a new writer.

This stuff is getting old.

I get it, facts and empirical evidence doesn't generally follow conservatives

The only thing you get is the label "Board Moron".

 

[Listening]

You have no facts. You have no empirical evidence. You have nothing. Democrats have nothing!! Obama has failed out almost everything.


Other than one "Confidence Report" for one month.... which I pointed out can turn on a dime especially since that was taken before UE went back up and interest rates started to go back up....what OTHER pieces of evidence do you have that the economy is doing great?

" OTHER pieces of evidence do you have that the economy is doing great"

REALLY? Who claims that? You mean has Obama picked US up from the disaster Dubya/GOP policies left US? YES. Is the US economy SLOWLY BUT STEADILY GETTING BACK TO WHERE CLINTON HAD US? YES

EVERYTHING else you posit is just rabid right wing crap...

You're damn right it's SLOWLY. As in malaise, not exuberance.

My work is done here.

Yes, I am afraid DudPeePee has been beaten, owned, trounced, and humiliated....

And that was in just the first three pages.

 

[EconChick]

Did Obama blah blah blah... QUOTE]

Well, well. NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll is out.

Jakey, Dad2three, LL, et. al...I think it's time to hang up your hats as economic prognosticators. You've been way off and here's yet more proof.

64% of Americans unhappy with economy.



Let me say this again. 64% of Americans upset about the economy.



Do you have any idea how bad that is for Obummer?

And by all means, please say that the low numbers for Congress mean the American people DON'T blame Obama for the poor economy. LOL.

 

[Listening]

Did Obama blah blah blah... QUOTE]

Well, well. NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll is out.

Jakey, Dad2three, LL, et. al...I think it's time to hang up your hats as economic prognosticators. You've been way off and here's yet more proof.

64% of Americans unhappy with economy.



Let me say this again. 64% of Americans upset about the economy.



Do you have any idea how bad that is for Obummer?

And by all means, please say that the low numbers for Congress mean the American people DON'T blame Obama for the poor economy. LOL.

Watch Jake post something about "data" and how the OP doesn't follow.

This should be fun.

 

[EconChick]

Watch Jake post something about "data" and how the OP doesn't follow.

This should be fun.

He's too embarrassed to post in this thread. I warned them to be careful what they wished for.

Hey, btw, we're talking Reagan on the Trickle Down thread for Rabbi....come take a look at how the libs are crashing and burning....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Did Obama blah blah blah... QUOTE]

Well, well. NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll is out.

Jakey, Dad2three, LL, et. al...I think it's time to hang up your hats as economic prognosticators. You've been way off and here's yet more proof.

64% of Americans unhappy with economy.



Let me say this again. 64% of Americans upset about the economy.



Do you have any idea how bad that is for Obummer?

And by all means, please say that the low numbers for Congress mean the American people DON'T blame Obama for the poor economy. LOL.

That's an odd post in this thread, especially from its author, given that the first 3 words of the thread were the command to

"forget econ stats"

 

[nodoginnafight]

Yeah you gotta love a person who claims to be an economist and tells you to ignore economic statistics ....

and then follows that up with saying the internet has a liberal bias.

 

[LoneLaugher]

He's too embarrassed to post in this thread. I warned them to be careful what they wished for.

Hey, btw, we're talking Reagan on the Trickle Down thread for Rabbi....come take a look at how the libs are crashing and burning....

 

[Bush92]

Very simple: "What's good for Wall Street is not always good for main street." Millions of manufacturing jobs left to China. That hurt main street. But, stock prices soared as companies had a reduction in labor cost.

 

[RKMBrown]

Very simple: "What's good for Wall Street is not always good for main street." Millions of manufacturing jobs left to China. That hurt main street. But, stock prices soared as companies had a reduction in labor cost.

Bingo. It's one thing to have a tax break it's another to invite people to spend it offshore.